As the title suggests, I've been working on a custom crossover set based around the SCP foundation. I like MTG, I like SCP Foundation, it kinda just happened. Pretty much every card is a top down design based around an actual SCP or at the very least reflects a bit of Foundation lore, which has been difficult but also fun to try out. There may be some meddling that occurs due to some familiar planeswalkers arriving and being promptly labeled anomalies, which would be a driving force in the sets storyline. I am surprised how well it's turning out so far.
Two custom mechanics that are going to appear directly interact with each other. The first is Contain. I have two different versions of the mechanic I am playing around with and I was hoping I could get some feedback on which seems better, or if another version might be more streamlined. Here's the gist.
* Version 1: Contain - (To contain a card, exile it with a containment counter on it. A player may pay any time they could cast a sorcery to put a card they own in containment into their hand.)
* Version 2: Contain - (To contain a card, exile it with a containment counter on it. A player may pay or discard 2 cards any time they could cast a sorcery to put a card they own in containment into their hand.)
These are some examples of how the effect would appear on a card
Expunge Data
Instant (C)
Contain target tapped creature.
Sometimes it's best to leave out a few details.
Cosmic Castaway
Creature - Alien (C)
When Cosmic Castaway enters the battlefield, choose one:
- Search your library for 2 land cards, contain them, then shuffle your library.
- put a +1/+1 counter on Cosmic Castaway
Words of the Demiurge
Instant (U)
As an additional cost to cast this spell, contain two cards in your hand.
Draw two cards.
Yaldabaoth offered its fanatical followers power beyond strength and knowledge without reason.
Regardless of the version, the function of the second mechanic remains largely unchanged. Breach is a mechanic that rewards containing cards in your library.
Breach COST (If this permanent is in containment, you may pay COST any time you could cast a sorcery to put it onto the battlefield under your control from exile.)
There is often an additional triggered effect when a creature breaches containment.
Critical Tomatoes
Creature - Plant (u)
Defender
Breach
: add or
When critical tomatoes breaches, it deals 3 damage to any target.
0/4
Bedside Lurker
Creature - Horror (C)
Menace
Breach
When Bedside Lurker breaches, each opponent discards a card.
3/2
I was hoping to get some feedback on how the mechanics sound. If there were any ideas on the balance of these effects, what would be needed to make them work and how I could possibly streamline them, let me know. If you have any ideas for a card using these mechanics, feel free to post something too as I may use it for inspiration in future cards. Anyways, it's still a ways away from being done but I am a decent ways through the commons of the set and just need to streamline these mechanics before I can head further.
SCP Inspired Mechanics for Custom Set - Contain and Breach
Community Rules
‖ Forum rules
For Contain, it seems like it could be a really tricky mechanic to balance correctly. That is, cost it too low and the spells are either broken are useless (depending on what you are doing) and cost it too high and the effect is effectively just "exile forever".
I think I lean towards the second version of Contain. The only real problem is the idea that discarding can be a benefit sometimes. As a Madness enabler for example. But I doubt it is broken too much. I would even like to see the discard be the only way of getting it back, but I see the need for a mana payment too and 3 seems fine.
Breach seems kind of cool. I think Critical Tomatoes should cost more than 1 mana though. Especially with your Words of the Demiurge spell or things like it. 1 mana for ramp and a Bolt is pretty good. Maybe 2 mana is fine? Costs the same as just casting it, but jump through a hoop and get an extra effect? Depending on other cards though, it seems possible that things like Expunge Data could create repeatable bolts with that card? Not sure on that.
The only other thing I would think about is wording it as "When ~ enters the battlefield, if it breached (containment), ....". The only reason I say this is because the current wording can be somewhat ambiguous with things like Containment Priest (ironically, on brand). Since the trigger cares about it "breaching" and not specifically "entering the battlefield" the argument could be made that the attempt to enter was good enough to cause it to trigger.
It probably wouldn't since the ability, like most abilities, only work from the battlefield (though, it might depend on the actual rules wording of Breach) but it still might be best to nip that in the bud up front even if it requires somewhat inelegant wording. It also is clearer on how it works with things like Yarok. Though, if you are trying to limit those interactions, you might need something like the current wording.
I think I lean towards the second version of Contain. The only real problem is the idea that discarding can be a benefit sometimes. As a Madness enabler for example. But I doubt it is broken too much. I would even like to see the discard be the only way of getting it back, but I see the need for a mana payment too and 3 seems fine.
Breach seems kind of cool. I think Critical Tomatoes should cost more than 1 mana though. Especially with your Words of the Demiurge spell or things like it. 1 mana for ramp and a Bolt is pretty good. Maybe 2 mana is fine? Costs the same as just casting it, but jump through a hoop and get an extra effect? Depending on other cards though, it seems possible that things like Expunge Data could create repeatable bolts with that card? Not sure on that.
The only other thing I would think about is wording it as "When ~ enters the battlefield, if it breached (containment), ....". The only reason I say this is because the current wording can be somewhat ambiguous with things like Containment Priest (ironically, on brand). Since the trigger cares about it "breaching" and not specifically "entering the battlefield" the argument could be made that the attempt to enter was good enough to cause it to trigger.
It probably wouldn't since the ability, like most abilities, only work from the battlefield (though, it might depend on the actual rules wording of Breach) but it still might be best to nip that in the bud up front even if it requires somewhat inelegant wording. It also is clearer on how it works with things like Yarok. Though, if you are trying to limit those interactions, you might need something like the current wording.
-
- Posts: 338
- Joined: 4 years ago
- Pronoun: he / him
Contain is facing a significant problem. You are using it in too many way. In your three cards you have the makings of three seperate and interesting mechanics. A cheaper method of removal. An alternative cost that benefits you. And a straight bonus on other cards. You are doing too much.
As for breach. This is where thst earlier problem rears its head. Breach is costed as though contain is only the second one. A method of getting the hidden value attached to your other cards early. It isnt costed as though it invalidates a type of removal nor that you contain as a side benefit to other cards.
While softer removal is interesting you should stick to only the second mode for containment. An additional cost/downside that has secret value to you. Tvis will allow you to more easily balance the cards because as is Expunge Date looks to be overcosted even at .
As for breach. This is where thst earlier problem rears its head. Breach is costed as though contain is only the second one. A method of getting the hidden value attached to your other cards early. It isnt costed as though it invalidates a type of removal nor that you contain as a side benefit to other cards.
While softer removal is interesting you should stick to only the second mode for containment. An additional cost/downside that has secret value to you. Tvis will allow you to more easily balance the cards because as is Expunge Date looks to be overcosted even at .
My original idea was something like the breach effect occurred immediately after the card "exits" exile when the controller pays its breach cost. However, that may make things a bit more complicated than things need to be and I may change the wording to be an etb effect.WizardMN wrote: ↑3 years agoSPOILERShowHideFor Contain, it seems like it could be a really tricky mechanic to balance correctly. That is, cost it too low and the spells are either broken are useless (depending on what you are doing) and cost it too high and the effect is effectively just "exile forever".
I think I lean towards the second version of Contain. The only real problem is the idea that discarding can be a benefit sometimes. As a Madness enabler for example. But I doubt it is broken too much. I would even like to see the discard be the only way of getting it back, but I see the need for a mana payment too and 3 seems fine.
Breach seems kind of cool. I think Critical Tomatoes should cost more than 1 mana though. Especially with your Words of the Demiurge spell or things like it. 1 mana for ramp and a Bolt is pretty good. Maybe 2 mana is fine? Costs the same as just casting it, but jump through a hoop and get an extra effect? Depending on other cards though, it seems possible that things like Expunge Data could create repeatable bolts with that card? Not sure on that.
The only other thing I would think about is wording it as "When ~ enters the battlefield, if it breached (containment), ....". The only reason I say this is because the current wording can be somewhat ambiguous with things like Containment Priest (ironically, on brand). Since the trigger cares about it "breaching" and not specifically "entering the battlefield" the argument could be made that the attempt to enter was good enough to cause it to trigger.
It probably wouldn't since the ability, like most abilities, only work from the battlefield (though, it might depend on the actual rules wording of Breach) but it still might be best to nip that in the bud up front even if it requires somewhat inelegant wording. It also is clearer on how it works with things like Yarok. Though, if you are trying to limit those interactions, you might need something like the current wording.
I haven't found any interactions that would make this too OP yet as the intention is to make then a bit stronger since it requires a bit of set for them to happen. The other option would be to change the mechanic to have breach be an ability to actually cast the card from containment rather than putting it on the battlefield. It would make the breach effect trigger on the casting rather than as an etb. A notable side effect of this version is that a breaching spell can be countered instead of simply putting something on the battlefield. It could also theoretically mean you could put breach on instants and sorceries, though I don't really like that idea so far.
At first I kinda disagreed with you, but I do agree that the more functionally useful way to use the mechanic would be containing your own cards rather than using them offensively. I may put it on a card or two as a gimmick, but overall I think there's just more design space and easily balanced cards when useduser_938036 wrote: ↑3 years agoSPOILERShowHideContain is facing a significant problem. You are using it in too many way. In your three cards you have the makings of three seperate and interesting mechanics. A cheaper method of removal. An alternative cost that benefits you. And a straight bonus on other cards. You are doing too much.
As for breach. This is where thst earlier problem rears its head. Breach is costed as though contain is only the second one. A method of getting the hidden value attached to your other cards early. It isnt costed as though it invalidates a type of removal nor that you contain as a side benefit to other cards.
While softer removal is interesting you should stick to only the second mode for containment. An additional cost/downside that has secret value to you. This will allow you to more easily balance the cards because as is Expunge Date looks to be overcosted even at .
- SecretInfiltrator
- Posts: 5701
- Joined: 4 years ago
- Pronoun: they / them
- Location: The Shattered Realm
Another big weakness here, I see, is that breach only works on containment. Extremely parasitic.
- OneAndOnly
- Posts: 2285
- Joined: 4 years ago
- Pronoun: he / him
This might be better not as a keyworded action, but an ability word.
"Contain -- Exile this creature until any player pays {cost}. As a player does, that player gains control of this card."
I'm suggesting this even though most of the "contain" abilities you're suggesting are identical (which isn't normally where you'd use ability words). I don't see that you're differentiating it enough form exile to warrant a different action word.
And rather than what you have for breach,
"Breach -- When this enters the battlefield, if it entered from exile, {effect}"
"Contain -- Exile this creature until any player pays {cost}. As a player does, that player gains control of this card."
I'm suggesting this even though most of the "contain" abilities you're suggesting are identical (which isn't normally where you'd use ability words). I don't see that you're differentiating it enough form exile to warrant a different action word.
And rather than what you have for breach,
"Breach -- When this enters the battlefield, if it entered from exile, {effect}"